Help Me Honda

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Help Me Honda

ALRIGHT, which is a better company nissan or honda... if you answer nissan please press your back browser now... if you answer honda please tell me why. Me and my friend are debating which company is better, he has a 300zx and thinks it pwns all, we been arguing about it for a lil bit now. so need some strong compelling arguments on why honda is better than nissan, ive already spat out all 3 pages i can think off, cmon my vtec brothas help me out.

posted by  Stem

This is the same old tired argument that people with too much time and too little brains always go on about. Both companies have their strong points and their weak points. Neither is better than the other.

You might be able to determine if one or the other builds a better car for a specific purpose, but attempting to compare companies is ludicrous and a waste of everyone's time.

posted by  vwhobo

I prefer Nissan. The 350Z over the S2000, for sure. The Skyline GT-R over the NSX, maybe the Z-Tune.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Like hobo said, people like and dislike each company on their own drawbacks and positives. Nissan tends to have larger displacement motors in their vehicles and produce a little more power than do Hondas, but in almost all cases a Honda counterpart gets better gas mileage. Hondas have almost always been a step above Nissan in the reliability department. Nissan is more daring in their designs than Honda is, this is easily seen in even their bread and butter Altima as it tries to "Stand out" from the rest. Nissan tends to make heavier vehicles (Again, with bigger engines). Just look at the 300ZXTT, Honda would NEVER think of coming out with a 3400-3500lb RWD Twin Turbo V6 coupe. On the other hand, Nissan would never probably make a RWD sports car like the S2000 that was so small and powered with a SCREAMING N/A four cylinder. Instead, Nissan makes a 3600lb pig of a roadster with a large V6 (350Z).

Each company has it's own merits. They are on two different agendas and it's apparent. Nissan is FULLY into the Truck and SUV market with body on frame designs with 4.0L V6 base engines and 5.6L V8's while Honda isn't even venturing out of unibody based SUV's with no bigger engines than 3.5L V6's and dont even have a "truck" to speak of (The Ridgeline is an SUV, with a small bed). It's just not fair to say one company is better than the other. Because certain people like big, heavy convertibles with just "okay" handling and big engines; while other people enjoy small, light convertibles with high revving four cylinders and superior handling.

That's just the way it is.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Nah I'd take an S2000 over a 350z but I'm not sure about the GT-R and NSX, there both good can't we combine them to make the ultimate car? :laughing:
I'd probably take the GT-R because I'm a bit of a fan. :mrgreen:


Just tell your mate if nissans so good how come they have nothing to do with formula 1. :laughing:

Honda and Nissan are both good. :thumbs:

posted by  GreekWarrior

Its all about preferences.Why would there be any Hyundais or Kias on the road if honda is the universal "best"?

ps. VTEC = overrated

posted by  importluva

It's only "overrated" by the Ricers who think it's god's gift to people without forced induction. :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

The 300ZX doesnt own everything out there, but it will take its fair share of cars. The twin turbo is however a very mean machine. Honda has some nice cars as well. S2000, new civic, Prelude. Its really a dead argument because youre both just pissing in the wind. The point here is that both companies have their ups and downs just like any other manufacturer out there, and no matter what there will always be a car thats better at one point or another. The McLaren F1 was the beast untill the Veyron. Something will replace the Veyron sooner or later. He cant say that it owns all, because you can now call him a RICER!

posted by  newyorker

Both cars are good...depends on what you use them for...I'd take a Nissan Titan over a Honda Ridgeline, a Nissan Skyline over almost any other semi-exotic car, possible even an NSX (never really had to choose though...maybe some day :roll:), but I also like the Civic Si over the Sentra, and motorcycles, and ATV's/Dirtbikes, I like Honda, because as far as I know, Nissan doesn't have any, and Honda's are reliable...Just my :2cents:

posted by  chris_knows

Nissan is also reliable...quite more than Honda. Ive never heard of a Maxima needing anything other than oil and the regular stuff before 150k miles.

posted by  newyorker

No offense but I highly doubt you have near enough car experience to make near that kind of assumption, especially because chances are your friend has an altima. Thats like taking your two friends one with a civic one with an altima and comparing what all maintenance they have needed. POINTLESS, ever think about how the cars were treated before your friends got them? And don't say their parents because 80% of adults do oil changes and thats about it.

posted by  Pythias

Hey, guys... We can stop the conversation now. Even the dimmest amongst us understands that they both have good and bad points, so you can't say one company is better than the other. More importantly, the ADD pinhead who started the thread isn't interested in what we have to say, because it doesn't support his side of the argument. Read the first line of the opening post... He wants somebody to agree with him or he doesn't care what you have to say. It looks like he's the poster boy for closed mindedness.

posted by  vwhobo

:clap:

posted by  newyorker

What i think he did was he created the thread incorrectly. If he would've explained that he would like to learn some of the best strongpoints of Honda's and shit like that i don't think it would've gotten so out of hand. Then further along said something like "how about compared to nissan?" more delicate not exactly how he did it. Personally i think both are great companies Nissan makes more luxury cars Honda makes more economical cars. Depends on prefrence as well. My friend has an altima and i have a civic we never compare and go at who's is better.

posted by  95civicdima

I prefer Honda as their cars appeal to me more than Nissan or toyota. As what everyone says it'a all about personal preferences.

posted by  fudge

I know Nissans are reliable...my mom has a Sentra...only one problem with it until now...the battery was corroded, and the car wouldn't start, but it fixed up easily, just depends on how they are treated...but as the Hobo said, each company has its strong points...

posted by  chris_knows

What year and how many miles are on your mom's Sentra? If it's close to 100k miles it's time to start thinking timing chain.

posted by  vwhobo

You mean belt? From what I know GM engines have chains and Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc.etc. have belts.

posted by  newyorker

No, I think I mean a chain. For example, a Nissan KA24E;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/vwhobo/9abaf530.jpg

posted by  vwhobo

Thats new to me. Whats that a motor from?

posted by  newyorker

Try doing a search. It was installed in several different Nissans over the years.

posted by  vwhobo

Just because your moms Sentra is reliable doesnt make Nissan as a whole reliable. It would be just like someone saying their Quest (which is pretty much summed up as Nissan's worst reliable vehicles, as they are having CONSTANT issues with it) is un reliable therefore Nissans are unreliable.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yeah, I know the FJ20 had a chain instead of a belt.

posted by  GreekWarrior

Is there some difference between the 2? Besides for the fact that one is a chain and the other is a belt. Does one outlast the other, give better performance, less wear? I never knew and would love to find out.

posted by  newyorker

Beat both Honda's and Nissan's in a domestic V-8 but then again mine didn't have a TV installed... Dyno'd 1,200+ hp out of a small V-8. Agree that it is preference.

My Honda was perfectly relaible, my Nissan never did make it out of the garage, my Toyota blew every part at least once.


Arguments for timing belt: Cheap to manufacture, keeps down valve train shock, more reliable now than in the early years.

Arguments for timing chain: Takes less power from engine, reliable so long as replaced within service intervals. Less stretch than a belt.

posted by  electrodes

It's a 2003 Sentra, and the lease ends in January...they're thinking about keeping it, but I don't really like it (looks a bit weird IMO)...it's pretty close to 100K miles, I think around 140,000 km...so about 20-30,000 km until the belt's changed...I'll tell her though, thanks for the heads up :wink2:



No, I never said all Nissans were reliable...I was just agreeing with newyorker that Nissan can make reliable cars, just like Honda...and Nissan makes unreliable cars, but then again, just about every other car manufacturer does too...

posted by  chris_knows

Well, you actually said... "I know Nissans are reliable..."

That does mean Nissans, which is easily taken as, all Nissans.

posted by  thunderbird1100

That was an error on my part...what I meant is most Nissans are reliable, but then again most Asian cars are reliable, with a couple of exceptions...

posted by  chris_knows

Kia is made in Asia isnt it? Korea is part of Asia? So is deawoo, and hyundai. Trash in my eyes except for the Tiburon.

posted by  newyorker

Kia's newer cars, from what I've heard are quite reliable...but they are owned by Ford (I believe) so I'm not sure if that would be considered Asian. They can still go good for 10 years, as they are covered by a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty...Same with Hyundai, a lot of their newer cars are also getting more reliable...and Daewoo, well you don't see too many of them around here, so I wouldn't know of their reliability, but that's why I said most Asian cars are reliable...

*By newer I mean 2002/2003+

BTW The Tiburon is pretty reliable, but slightly underpowered IMO...

posted by  chris_knows

I prefer Nissan, due to them having more cars performance wise. But Hondas have great reliability, even though Nissan does as well have good reliability, Honda takes it in that.

posted by  nsupra27

You could of just said "japanese" cars to make it simple. LEaves out the Koreans. Just leaves Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Subaru.

Only really sketchy company there is Mitsubishi.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I guess that's true...but you're forgetting Mazda, most of their cars are reliable, but I've heard that the RX-7/RX-8 have troubles starting up in cold weather...Don't get me wrong, I love those cars, and I was looking around for an RX-7 around here, just to see what cars I can afford when I'm old enough (even though I still have a year :doh: ) for a low price, but they all go $10,000+ :ohcrap:

posted by  chris_knows

Kia is owned by Hyundai, not Ford. Daewoo's are pure crap, they have horrible maintainence, at least from my experience, i've never owned one, but my friend did. And it constantly needed work, at the end he just gave up, it cost more to replace one of the parts then the car itself. Hyundai's on the other hand are pretty reliable, at least their newer cars like the new Sonata. That thing is quite a competitor.

posted by  aerith

I wouldn't say that Infiniti's are more luxurious then Acura's. The TL has a interior around 2 times more luxurious then the G35's. The RL's interior quality is just as good as the M45 if not better. The RL/TL actually has more luxurious features then their Infiniti counterparts. For example; much better sound systems, Navi system with unrivaled voice command ability. The Acura's also have much quieter cabins; especially the RL with the noise cancelling equipment. User interface is much easier to use, instead of the iDrive like knob you find in the M35/45. The TL has two seat position memory instead of one in the G.

Instead of Infiniti being more luxurious, i would rather say more sporty; nice powertrains. In interiors; from my opinion most of the interiors found in Honda's are nicer then their Nissan Counterparts; Sentra vs 06 Civic, Accord Leather vs Altima leather, Oddysey EX-L vs Quest, Pilot vs Pathfinder.

posted by  aerith

Mazda pretty much = Ford in my book now. They both use the 2.3L and 3.0L which goes in a ton of MAzda vehicles.

Although you could argue Mitsubishi is Daimler Chrysler, I dont think they are as much as Mazda is Ford.

I dont trust rotary reliabilty one bit. In having two close people own rotary powered vehicles and being in close knit with many RX-7 owners, they and I all say the Rotary is an engine waiting to fail. But usually they just deal with it, pay $4000-$5000 and slap a new 13b-rew in there.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Agree with this totally. Infiniti usually doesn't have as plush of an interior as it's Acura competitor has. This is always constantly brought up alone in G35/TL reviews. All you have to do is sit in the G35 Sedan and then the TL and realize how much better the quality of materials and plushness is in the TL over the G35. I agree with your vehicle vs. vehicle on Honda/Nissan too, The Hondas have nicer interiors having sat in all of the aforementioned vehicles.

I honestly tihnk the only thing I like the interior of the G35 better is the fact it has REAR reclining seats....that's just cool.

posted by  thunderbird1100

In the BMW 760i, they have electric reclining rear seats as an option. :hi: My uncle owns one. :D

posted by  aerith

There was one in my area with the rotary engine with 200k miles for 2k. I had no interest in an RX-7 though.

posted by  Pythias

Too bad it's 5 times the price of a G35. :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yeah, I've heard that there were some for sale in Florida for $2,500...and had 14,000 miles...but I highly doubt it...My neighbor has an RX-7...just got it recently, and everytime I walk by it, I see the 5" exhaust, and a small part of me dies inside :cry:...I'll see if I can snap some pics of it...

posted by  chris_knows

200k miles must be a record or something for a rotary...

Unless he meant the CHASSIS had 200k miles.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Are you talking about the G35/Skyline? Or the family sedan?

posted by  IwantaSti

I can do a "I had a friend that did" for pretty much any car out there, for good OR bad.

posted by  ChrisV

No, I've seen a few bone stock N/A rotaries go over that mark without a rebuild. Someone who never overheats teh engine, is religious about oil changes, and doesn't beat up the car can go a long time.

Turbo ones much less likely and modded ones not at all, however.

Of course my OWN FC died at 100k miles, but I have no idea how the PO treated it. none of my modded rotaries went that long, that's for sure.

posted by  ChrisV

I've seen alot of modded turbo RX7s with huge exhaust. But, I don't count that as ricey.

posted by  ChrisV

:ticking: As soon as you get your head outta your a$$ you may realize how stupid your comment is :banghead:

posted by  importluva

Double Post, Do'H :banghead:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Sure thing rotard :wink2:

I'll post something that Chris wrote that I personally can relate to with my girlfriends FD (which was babied for all 90k miles until it blew), and many people I know.



That pretty much sums most rotary owners up.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I don't see it as ricey, but just tasteless...and I think he traded it now...I haven't seen it in a couple of days, but now there's some other car (haven't paid much attention to it--also with a rediculously larger IMO exhaust tip) but I'll go get some pictures now...while I collect cans for my school :doh:

EDIT: Car wasn't there, but It should be tomorrow morning, I'll put some pictures up tomorrow after school I guess :doh:

posted by  chris_knows

T-bird, read my quote. You are claiming ALL rotaries struggle to get to 200k. Thats not even close to the truth, regardless of what you think or what ChrisV says. N/A rotaries are known to go beyond what your own accord has been through. My own car is still going very well at 167k.

Turbo rotaries will need to be rebuilt, agreed, but N/A should last a very very long time. I still see the original RX-7s from the 70s still running. The 787B won LeMans with a rotary, and after they opened up the engine,it was still perfect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/787b) . Mazda races the Renesis. Rotaries are reliable and advantageous enough to have been banned from some forms of racing.

Rotaries are not as fagile as you are making them out to be. Don't spew any more misinformation if you don't know the facts.

posted by  importluva

And just for kicks, someone in Puerto Rico fitted a 20b sequential turbo engine, mated it to the RX-8 6-speed, and put in a RX-8. The beast is making 650hp, all for $7500. At that power level, the 2nd gear synchros are starting to go, but even then, the tranny is holding up quite well.

posted by  importluva

The "don't beat up the car" part is not entirely true. It depends on what you mean by "beat up the car", but i have been told numerous times to redline my FC atleast once every time i drive it, keep the carbon out.

posted by  importluva

Oh, yeah, I'll agree on that, but you can't ignore them like normal cars. No detonation, no overheating, no running low on oil, no constant threashing beaceu you think it can run to 8k every time you hit the gas pedal, which is how too many new rotary fiends treat the cars.

As for the race cars, being reliable for 24 hours, with a huge tech crew to keep it healthy, is a far cry form street use. You gotta last more than 24 hours on the road. They make a big deal about it completing the 24 hours, but there have been a LOT of cars that completed the 24 hours, and they pretty much all had pistons. You simply don't hear about the condition of the engine after the race because no one really thinks it a big deal to mention it.

I know you don't give a shit what I say, but I've owned and worked on more rotary cars that you, and I LIKE them. But the number of stockers I've seen make it reliably to that kind of mileage is small, and the number of modded ones that put out more than stock levels of power and made it to that kind of mileage is nil even with top shops putting them together. I've asked on RX7club and teamFC3s, and no one can point one out. yeah, stock N/As with a bunch of miles are able to be located, but mine only went 100k before it ate an apex seal and destroyed the rear half of the engine with no warning. Good oil pressure, no overheating, and excellent running right to the point it didn't...

posted by  ChrisV

How many miles doe that engine have on it? How many till it needs rebuilding?

It's cool and all, and I fully support that sort of craziness...

posted by  ChrisV

importluva, read between the lines, I was being SARCASTIC/EXAGERATING. Of course some rotaries will last that long. I've been specificallyu talking about the 13b-REW in almsot all cases in seriousness. BTW - Your rotary is N/A correct? Well, it still has some catching up to do, my Accord is at 226k trouble free miles. And never babied for a minute.



I never said N/A rotaries wouldnt last long (when I was being serious), my whole case is agianst the twin turbo REW, as I've had lots of experience with them between the one my girlfriend owned, rotary experts who have owned them, and several other people who have owned them. Okay maybe you DON'T know, but the RX-7 CAME OUT in 1978 as a 1979 model, why is it I find it hard to believe you've seen a ROAD GOING example of a 1979 RX-7 with the 12a motor RECENTLY? My dad owned a 1979 12a RX-7 for a short while (in the early 80s), he liked it, it was beater car though. He admittedly beat the living hell out of it. Wow, a RACE ENGINE lasted the entire race. That's such a feat for rotaries, no really, it is... While that was a nice feat for Mazda and the Rotards, what Renesis powered RX-8's are winning ANYTHING today? Seriously what racing series are they doing so well in?



Oh really? You want more "misinformation"; well, the FACT is sitting BLOWN UP in my girlfriend's garage back home.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Your Message